Mormonsandgays

[rockpond]

The quotes are obscure. My reference to anti-Mormon boilerplate was that it is anti-Mormon MO to take quotes such as these out of context and use them as weapons agains the faith of the Latter-day Saints.

Ummm... okay. The Journal of Discourses is a record of the early general conferences of the church but if you feel that is obscure, I won't argue it anymore.

You haven't provided any evidence that the quotes were taken out of context. I was told that if I can't provide evidence when asked that I had to retract my statement or leave the thread.

I'm not asking you to leave. Nor do I really care if you retract your statement as I think the discussion has progressed well beyond those earlier points we were making. I'm just pointing out that you seem to be holding me to a standard, with respect to documentation of claims, that you don't place upon yourself.

[canard78]

I actually never gave a title to Elder Holland's article. What I did was quote from "God Loveth His Children" and mistakenly attributed it to Elder Holland. Then, upon you identifying my error, I quoted Elder Holland and provided a link to the exact article. Within the course of a couple posts I had provided both quotes, authorship, and location of sources. I thought that might be good enough. I didn't realize that we were supposed to beat each other up over these kinds of details. You referred to my quotes by prophets and apostles as obscure and anti-Mormon... I dropped that without you admitting your error -- should I keep banging you over the head with it or are we here in an attempt to mutually profit from a friendly discussion?

Yes. Infinite and eternal possibilities.

As I've said in other threads, unfortunately the nature of this board is that people can get overly focused 'being right' - this is, I believe, with the best of intentions of defending their beliefs and position but can, sometimes, get overly focused on this need to score points. I agree that you have reasonably corrected your sources on who wrote what.

Regarding the possibility that the definition on marriage could change. No-one here can say 'it will never change.' We don't have that right. At the same time, that doesn't mean it ever will, nor is it likely to. But the fact that we continually teach that the heavens aren't closed means the possibility will remain. Even God sometimes says 'endless' but doesn't mean 'for ever' but teaches it that way to have a greater influence and effect on the hearts of man (D&C 19:6-7).

That possibility in no way legitimises those who practice in anticipation of the unknown.

We should live under the teachings of today. I don't live levitival law, I don't live early christian application, I don't live Brigham Young application/interpretation.

[Scott Lloyd]

Ummm... okay. The Journal of Discourses is a record of the early general conferences of the church but if you feel that is obscure, I won't argue it anymore.

You haven't provided any evidence that the quotes were taken out of context.

I said the context was in question given the Book of Mormon doctrine that plural marriage is only ever a temporary circumstance conditional upon whether the Lord has commanded it. Therefore, while the statements may have had some application to the people to whom they were addressed, they could not mean what you intend them to.

I'm not asking you to leave.

I think I will anyway. Conversing with you has long since grown tedious.

[Mark Beesley]

Then this may not be the board for you If you make a statement of fact you have to include a bibliography. If I read a statement of fact, especially about mormonism. I want a reference to see if that statement of fact carries weight (for and against).

That's only true some of the times. Some board members get away with telling us they're not going to do the research for us and then we get banned from a thread for teasing them about it. . .

[Mark Beesley]

Ummm... okay. The Journal of Discourses is a record of the early general conferences of the church but if you feel that is obscure, I won't argue it anymore.

You haven't provided any evidence that the quotes were taken out of context. I was told that if I can't provide evidence when asked that I had to retract my statement or leave the thread.

I'm not asking you to leave. Nor do I really care if you retract your statement as I think the discussion has progressed well beyond those earlier points we were making. I'm just pointing out that you seem to be holding me to a standard, with respect to documentation of claims, that you don't place upon yourself.

Get used to it.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Ummm... okay. The Journal of Discourses is a record of the early general conferences of the church but if you feel that is obscure, I won't argue it anymore.

It is obscure it is rarely quoted from and rarely used. Most poeple in the church are really not that familiar with it. Funny that you think it is some mainstream source of doctrine. That says a lot about you.

[canard78]

It is obscure it is rarely quoted from and rarely used. Most poeple in the church are really not that familiar with it. Funny that you think it is some mainstream source of doctrine. That says a lot about you.

Webster:

ob·scure

Pronunciation: \äb-ˈskyu̇r, əb-\

Function: adjective

Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French oscur, obscur, from Latin obscurus

Date: 15th century

1 a : dark, dim b : shrouded in or hidden by darkness c : not clearly seen or easily distinguished : faint <obscure markings>

2 : not readily understood or clearly expressed; also : mysterious

3 : relatively unknown: as a : remote, secluded <an obscure village> b : not prominent or famous

The statements themselves are not obscure (definition 2) as they are quite clear in their message. At the time they were not obscure (1 & 3) as they were said to a wide audience (hence their appearance in the JoD).

Today they are obscure (1 & 3) to the general membership because the church has excluded them from sunday school manuals and teachings of the presidents. I'm glad they have because, frankly, many of them are an embarrassment.

To bring this back to the topic in hand. Today's statements via the new website, are clear and not obscure (def 2) in the attitude required to SSA and the "always will be" teaching on homosexual behaviour being a sin. I'm also glad it's not obscure (1 & 3) given it's front and top on lds.org and in the (US) national media.

The fact that certain teachings and doctrines have now been rescinded doesn't legitimise predicting which ones will be next. However much I would like something to happen, doesn't influence the chances that it will.

[Nathair/|\]

Like other so-called "New Order Mormons" (yes, I've checked you out) you have defined "the revealed word of the Lord" to exclude what is promulgated by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve acting as a united council. I'm afraid we are so far apart on this subject that we have nothing more to say to each other that would be productive.

I'm not allowed to quote temple content on this board, but I woudn't even if I could.

You beat me to it.

[Calm]

I certainly agree that it feels that way in our time period... an era when those issues have been resolved for many decades. I would imagine that back in the 19th Century it may not have felt the same. The quotes I provided by prophets/apostles certainly don't support your statement that these principles were "always acknowledged" to be temporary.

I don't want to go back and reread the thread so am just asking....didn't Scott or someone else post a quote from BY that plural marriage was understood as a temporary arrangement? And wasn't there a quote as well about the blacks getting the priesthood after the lineage of Abel had received it?

Do the prophets/apostles have to add the condition of temporariness to each comment about the limitations to qualify for "always acknowledged"? If not, what would qualify as sufficiently expressed to "always acknowledged"?

For me, since both practices started in the time period of BY, it seems to me that if there is a statement by the prophet at that time, in other words BY, acknowledging temporariness, then I see it as legitimate to say something along the lines of "from the beginning, it was acknowledged..." or "it was always acknowledged"....

[Calm]

Well, the Church and the Lord have also recognized marriage between a man and multiple women.

Women were not sealed to each other within the plural marriage context. Each marriage ceremony is/was between one man and one woman, even if the man was already married to another woman. If a divorce occurred, it did not invalidate all the other marriages. A man is only married to one woman in a marriage within the Church, whether the marriage is/was monogamous or whether he and his wives were involved in plural marriage. Edited December 12, 2012 by calmoriah

[Rob Osborn]

If gay Mormons want acceptance in the means of accepting them to Thanksgiving dinner, family and church functions, I am totally fine with that. However, a big part of me is hesitant to believe the push by organized gay groups is for that cause alone. It really appears to me as a way to legitimize sin and either make the church comply with their views or to make the church look bad. Its a no win situation if the church is going to battle for that reason. But then it doesn't surprise me either, standing up for what's right isn't always the popular thing to do. I just hope gay people don't get their hopes up that the church will change its position and accept their sinfulness.

[Saints Alive]

I just hope gay people don't get their hopes up that the church will change its position and accept their sinfulness.

I think that is exactly what some of them are after. They see no difference between acceptance of their lifestyle and ending segregation or women's suffrage.

[Calm]

You referred to my quotes by prophets and apostles as obscure and anti-Mormon..

Actually I think Scott meant the source of your quotes was from an anti-mormon site, not that the quotes themselves were...and the obscurity would be based on how often they are now used in church material.

Scott can correct me if I am misinterpreting him.

add-on: should have waited a bit longer to see if Scott had responded or not.

Edited December 12, 2012 by calmoriah

[california boy]

How do you figure that we "don't yet have the revealed word of the Lord on the matter?" Whenever the two leading Quorums are united enough to codify it in worthiness, temple recommend, etc. interviews, isn't it "revealed?" Barring what I guess you and others are holding out for ----- God to say something like "Uh, yeah guys, I kind of got that one wrong in the past. Sorry ----- both same and opposite sex married couples are good to go with full sanction" ---- it's as revealed as it ever will be.

The ironic thing is that those who agitate for changes along these lines would realize that a change has been made ----- when, exactly? Oh, yeah ---- when the two leading Quorums unitedly declare it so (in words and policy actions). But under your past logic (under this hypothetical scenario), couldn't the "traditionalists" just say at that point (as you and others are doing now) "It isn't revealed ----- and just wait ----- God's going to change it back in the future."

If this is true, why did it take a revelation from God to allow the blacks to hold the priesthood? Couldn't they have simply asked the Quorum of the Twelve and First Presidency to agree to the change? Or do you not believe that Spencer W. Kimball received an actual revelation?

[california boy]

If gay Mormons want acceptance in the means of accepting them to Thanksgiving dinner, family and church functions, I am totally fine with that. However, a big part of me is hesitant to believe the push by organized gay groups is for that cause alone. It really appears to me as a way to legitimize sin and either make the church comply with their views or to make the church look bad. Its a no win situation if the church is going to battle for that reason. But then it doesn't surprise me either, standing up for what's right isn't always the popular thing to do. I just hope gay people don't get their hopes up that the church will change its position and accept their sinfulness.

Do you think that gays view their relationships as sinful? Do you have any proof of that? Or perhaps you are only looking at gay behavior as an active Mormon and not as a gay person.

[rockpond]

I said the context was in question given the Book of Mormon doctrine that plural marriage is only ever a temporary circumstance conditional upon whether the Lord has commanded it. Therefore, while the statements may have had some application to the people to whom they were addressed, they could not mean what you intend them to.

Yes, I understand that's the point you wish to make. And yes, I understand that the polygamy quote stands in contrast to Jacob 2 (I'll provide that reference for you). But saying that the quotes might not mean what they appear to mean while refusing to provide anything to backup your claim leaves you in the realm of conjecture.

Then again, your use of the green vomiting smiley as a response to a previous post gives me a clue as to your level of discourse.

[rockpond]

It is obscure it is rarely quoted from and rarely used. Most poeple in the church are really not that familiar with it. Funny that you think it is some mainstream source of doctrine. That says a lot about you.

I never suggested that JoD is a "mainstream source of doctrine". Please read my actual words.

While I'm sure that you feel JoD is rarely quoted/used it IS quoted/used by the church... in our manuals. As I stated, it's a record of the early conferences of the church.

Most important is that you understand the context of the conversation in which I quoted from JoD. I was asked to provide references for 19th & early 20th century church practices/principles that were changed. Obviously I cannot go to 21st century or late 20th century sources for the quotes. And obviously quotes claiming that polygamy will never end and blacks will never hold the priesthood are NOT going to be quoted often anymore. Why would they be?

In short, I was asked to provide quotes from a certain period of time, so I went to one of the best sources for that time.

[rockpond]

I don't want to go back and reread the thread so am just asking....didn't Scott or someone else post a quote from BY that plural marriage was understood as a temporary arrangement?

No, it doesn't appear to be a part of Scott's MO to provide references for any of his statements. Though there do exist quotes from both perspectives: temporary and permanent.

Do the prophets/apostles have to add the condition of temporariness to each comment about the limitations to qualify for "always acknowledged"?

No. But since I provided quotes of prophets/apostles stating that such practices were nottemporary then it disqualifies the statement that they always acknowledged them to be temporary.

[rockpond]

Women were not sealed to each other within the plural marriage context. Each marriage ceremony is/was between one man and one woman, even if the man was already married to another woman. If a divorce occurred, it did not invalidate all the other marriages. A man is only married to one woman in a marriage within the Church, whether the marriage is/was monogamous or whether he and his wives were involved in plural marriage.

Yet each man was still married to multiple women at the same time.

[rockpond]

Actually I think Scott meant the source of your quotes was from an anti-mormon site, not that the quotes themselves were...and the obscurity would be based on how often they are now used in church material.

Again, how would I extract quotes from current church material to provide references for what used to be said about a now abandoned practice? Claiming that I should use current church material ignores the context of our discussion.

[canard78]

If gay Mormons want acceptance in the means of accepting them to Thanksgiving dinner, family and church functions, I am totally fine with that. However, a big part of me is hesitant to believe the push by organized gay groups is for that cause alone. It really appears to me as a way to legitimize sin and either make the church comply with their views or to make the church look bad. Its a no win situation if the church is going to battle for that reason. But then it doesn't surprise me either, standing up for what's right isn't always the popular thing to do. I just hope gay people don't get their hopes up that the church will change its position and accept their sinfulness.

A question I've multiple times but no-one has bothered to answer is how you would feel if the church made us all celibate. Would you walk away from your relationship without a second thought?

[Rob Osborn]

Do you think that gays view their relationships as sinful? Do you have any proof of that? Or perhaps you are only looking at gay behavior as an active Mormon and not as a gay person.

There will never be an end to the myriads of sin that man will try to justify before God and also his fellow man. This push for gay rights in our courts is fueled by the works of Satan, no more and no less.

[rockpond]

A question I've multiple times but no-one has bothered to answer is how you would feel if the church made us all celibate. Would you walk away from your relationship without a second thought?

Or what if one of us received a letter from the prophet today instructing us that we had just been arbitrarily assigned to a group of church members now required to live a life a celibacy? As with homosexual members, your testimony of the gospel and the restoration is still intact but now you are asked to live this almost unfathomable life. Would you stay at the cost of losing your spouse & children? Or the hope of a spouse/children? Or would you, possibly, hope/pray/petition for something different?

[rockpond]

There will never be an end to the myriads of sin that man will try to justify before God and also his fellow man. This push for gay rights in our courts is fueled by the works of Satan, no more and no less.

I ask that you provide a reference or retract that statement.

[Rob Osborn]

A question I've multiple times but no-one has bothered to answer is how you would feel if the church made us all celibate. Would you walk away from your relationship without a second thought?

Its a great thing that the real world isnt built upon what-ifs. Marriage between man and women is ordained of God and I am eternally protected in that right that no mere mortal man could take away. But, to appease- "if" the church were to try to make us celibate I would then know it wasn't Christ's church at all for it was He who said that the man without the women is not perfect.